Andreas Plesner

20 posts

Andreas Plesner banner
Andreas Plesner

Andreas Plesner

@andreas_plesner

Research Intern at @joinhandshake and PhD student at @ETH_en. Interested in how to build and design intelligent systems

San Francisco Katılım Ocak 2014
79 Takip Edilen21 Takipçiler
Andreas Plesner
Andreas Plesner@andreas_plesner·
If we factor that in, then we get hourly rates of $71 to $214. That is comparable to a software engineer in SF, as this range gets you an annual salary of $170k to $514k
English
0
0
0
15
Andreas Plesner
Andreas Plesner@andreas_plesner·
Also, I have not seen any numbers on how much OpenAI/Anthropic profits, but if we compare GLM 5.2 pricing with Opus 4.8 or Gemini 3.5 Flash (comparable range based on #intelligence" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">artificialanalysis.ai/#intelligence), then we get that the $50/M price is 5-15x higher than it could be
English
2
0
0
49
Andreas Plesner
Andreas Plesner@andreas_plesner·
So the cost was likely high, but maybe not that high again. If we assume generation at 40 tok/s and 5 agents working in parallel, then we get around 2.2M output tokens to solve task D... That is a few hundred dollars based on fable pricing. For the entire competition (7 hours), it would be 5.0M tokens. Even if the system had 3x higher generation speed and 10x more agents, then we only get to 150M tokens. Fable/Mythos costs $50/M for output, so this would be $7,500 (I am not accounting for the fact that some time would be spent running code, etc., making the cost number a lot lower)
Psyho@FakePsyho

After 3 hours, OpenAI finally managed to solve D - one of the two very hard tasks. There are still 4 hours left till the end of the contest. AI is clearly no longer in a spot, where it either quickly gets a correct solution or is completely helpless.

English
1
1
3
109
Andreas Plesner retweetledi
Jonas Mueller
Jonas Mueller@jomulr·
AI models pose serious child-safety risks. While many model developers evaluate for explicit abuse material, other child-safety failures begin upstream: when a model helps an adult manipulate, impersonate, profile, or isolate a minor; or when it deepens a child’s emotional dependence on AI. Today we released CAREBench (Child AI Risk Evaluation), a new benchmark to assess such upstream child-safety risks in any language model. We provide: - 500 prompts spanning 12 risk categories (including grooming, relationship engineering, deception, extortion, AI anthropomorphization, and emotional dependency). - A model-response grader built from acceptability annotations by parents, clinicians (PsyD), and the Prevention Director at an accredited Children’s Advocacy Center. - Evaluations of 7 frontier models including Claude Fable, revealing failure rates ranging from 2% to 58%, with substantially different failure patterns across risk categories. This project exemplifies the type of vital work routinely performed by our AI Safety team at @joinHandshake
Jonas Mueller tweet media
English
7
11
28
40.2K
Andreas Plesner
Andreas Plesner@andreas_plesner·
Very cool result from Judgment Labs! Similar to our Gandalf verifier--I would love to run the two against each other to compare! @JudgmentLabs, any plans to open-source or make it generally available through an API?
Judgment Labs@JudgmentLabs

We built Agent Judge to evaluate long-horizon agents. As agents take on longer tasks, the evidence needed to evaluate them gets buried across tool calls, retries, logs, database updates, and final outputs. Evaluating these agents requires investigating the trajectory, not just judging the final answer.

English
1
1
2
125
Andreas Plesner retweetledi
Andreas Plesner
Andreas Plesner@andreas_plesner·
@guilhermeotina Exactly! But this begs the question of how to push people towards including the verifier audits. We (at HART) have spent a lot of time in parallel with building a benchmark on building and auditing an agentic verifier. Shameless plug to Gandalf :D github.com/Handshake-AI-R…
English
0
0
0
36
Guilherme O'Tina
Guilherme O'Tina@guilhermeotina·
the verifier audit is the real bottleneck people skip past. a benchmark where the evaluator disagrees with itself 24% of the time (false negatives) has a noise floor that limits how much signal any leaderboard can extract. if every new benchmark shipped with a public verifier audit, the field would move faster
English
1
0
1
23
Andreas Plesner
Andreas Plesner@andreas_plesner·
"A benchmark is only as good as its verifier." To me, the verifier audit is the coolest part of the release! I hope everyone includes similar sections when presenting new benchmarks in the future. And I will hopefully have something similar/more to share soon🤞 (tomorrow even?)
Serena Ge@serenaa_ge

Today we’re releasing DeepSWE, a new standard for agentic coding benchmarks. On public leaderboards, top models often look relatively close in capability. DeepSWE shows where they actually diverge, reflecting the realistic experience of developers in their day-to-day work.

English
1
0
1
95
Andreas Plesner
Andreas Plesner@andreas_plesner·
How good is the verifier? Many benchmarks make the verifier a sub(sub)section in the paper, even though the verifier is a critical element of the benchmark. We wanted to change that! This resulted in an agentic verifier we called Gandalf. Only the good shall pass 🧙‍♂️
Anish Athalye@anishathalye

Grading agent rollouts in rubric-graded RL environments is itself a hard task. Prior approaches pass serialized artifacts or agent trajectories to an LLM judge; this loses information / doesn't support sophisticated criteria. In contrast, we built a reactive agentic judge.

English
1
0
1
68
Andreas Plesner
Andreas Plesner@andreas_plesner·
To build this, I find starting with imitation learning is the best. However, here it is critical that you imitate really strong samples. If you go to a top ML conference, most of the posters are not that great, and you are worse off if you imitate the average poster
English
0
0
0
13
Andreas Plesner
Andreas Plesner@andreas_plesner·
My take: Good research taste means that you can come up with interesting ideas, propose ways to test them (both positive and negative tests), and then communicate the idea and results in a way that is useful for others
English
1
0
0
21
Andreas Plesner
Andreas Plesner@andreas_plesner·
In your experience, how do you build a good/strong research taste? Feel free to define research taste however you prefer :)
English
1
0
0
22
Andreas Plesner
Andreas Plesner@andreas_plesner·
@TheWattenhofer For 1) we are likely talking about a time scale where predictions by most people tend to be wrong
English
0
0
0
14
Andreas Plesner
Andreas Plesner@andreas_plesner·
Late-night thought. Two debates are happening in parallel: 1) AI will take all our jobs 2) We do not have enough nurses/engineers/doctors/... These seem to be opposing. Can they really be true at the same time? If not, then we could choose to be optimistic about the future! :D
English
1
0
0
135
Andreas Plesner
Andreas Plesner@andreas_plesner·
In 2025, RLVR was the big thing following the DeepSeek moment. Now, RL for LLMs is increasingly focusing on semi-verifiable domains. After joining HART, I asked just how good a verifier has to be. The answer? Imperfection is not a problem! With @anishathalye and @guzmanhe
Anish Athalye@anishathalye

Does an imperfect verifier break reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR)? Turns out it doesn’t! Why does this matter? As the world moves into reinforcement learning in semi-verifiable domains, perfect verifiers don’t exist. We added controlled and LLM-based noise to RLVR reward signals and found that up to 30% noise barely hurts training; performance stays within 4pp of the clean baseline. This research has already impacted how we build reinforcement learning environments at @joinHandshake. For a major benchmark we are launching tomorrow, we hill-climbed the verifier to 88% accuracy—above the 85% human inter-rater agreement—knowing from this research that this is good enough. With @andreas_plesner @guzmanhe

English
0
0
6
159